[MyPantsAreOnFire]

Dude! Seriously. How is it not human? It has human DNA. It has human EVERYTHING. Its not a cat, its not a ferret, its not a Volkswagon. What the hell else is it? If its got human DNA and its ALIVE, then its human life. What about it makes it 'not human life?' I really don’t understand, please educate me.

I have no idea. Nobody does...there's not a concrete consensus as to when "human life" as we know it begins. Bottom line, personal beliefs aside, that's how it is. That's why, even though I'm someone that personally can't stand the idea of my wife or girlfriend getting an abortion, I have to go with the pro-choice option. People with opinions and beliefs that dictate they don't want one won't get one and those without them will choose to get one if they must. I can live with that. It's a compromise.

I'm not being sarcastic, I really don’t get it. In my third month I could feel that little thing in my belly swimming around and could feel its heart beating under my palm. That’s pretty fucking alive if you ask me. And I know its now a tree growing in there, so I don’t get how its not human life.

If you read any of my other posts you would have seen that I specifically said that abortions after the 3rd month shouldn't be alowed except in serious legal cases (rape, incest, etc.) or medical complications.

Telling yourself its just a piece of tissue is a copout. People need to take responsibility for their actions and quit making excuses based on nomenclature.

I don't know what it is. I don't think anyone actually does. Personally, I think after 3 months it's close enough to being "human" that abortions shouldn't be allowed them except in extreme cases. But again, that's me. My belief isn't "prove-able" enough at this point where I'd feel comfortable with sweeping federal laws declaring abortion illegal. I have further issues with that sentiment since so much of the opinion behind it is faith-based, particuarly faith that often thinks other forms of birth control (condoms, birth control pills, morning after-pills, sex education, etc.) are wrong as well. I fear that sweeping bans of abortion at this point, when it really is still a very fuzzy issue whether people want to admit it or not, will spill over into these other issues, or influence additional debates, like the issue of stem cell research.

And as far as the law goes, you can not say killing an unborn child isn’t killing a human being and then convict somebody of murder for doing the same. If Scott Peterson committed a crime, then so has everybody else who participates in an abortion and they should be held accountable.

I personally think after 3 months it is a child and such laws could be applicable except in special cases. I do not, however, know that I am right. Until it can be definitively clarified, I am far more comfortable with the idea of people being able to choose what they wish. I find the continued sentiments that dismiss women who get abortions as murderers or selfish or that they "just want to keep their figure" or they don't care to be MASSIVELY insulting. It's not an easy procedure people just leap into. I've had friends and family who have chosen to have one and it was NOT an easy choice for them. I'm baffled that people who oppose it can so easily write off seemingly everyone who gets one as being some kind of unfeeling monster. It's not that simple...like the entire debate, it's not a cut and dry, black and white issue.

[Spoon Poetic]

I still want to hear a valid argument on how a bundle of cells, no matter how new, that came from human DNA and will create a human and is alive, is not to be considered "human life." Why is there a question as to when it becomes "human life?" It's always human, and it's always alive, so why isn't it always human life to so many? I don't understand why people say "we can't know when it becomes 'human life.'"

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

This is an article I think helps sum up my own internal debate with that question:

http://www.findartic..._v23/ai_8082529

I'm sorry, nobody can definitvely say when human life as we know it (in terms of a born baby up until death) begins. I can't agree with that. I don't know. You don't know. Nobody knows. It's an ongoing scientific issue. Here's a segment from the article I linked that I think emphsazies the questions involved and why the issue is still very murky:

The pro-life movement's contention that a person exists fully and absolutely from conception sidesteps the difficult questions. As I wrote in Science and the Unborn, extending full personhood to an individual cell that is barely visible makes no more sense than declaring acorns to be oak trees and selling them at oak tree prices. Hall: What kind of individuality exists at conception? Grobstein: Only genetic individuality, a set of hereditary properties that define an individual, is present at conception. But there are five other essential aspects of individuality still to come: developmental, functional, behavioral, psychic and social--which means that full individuality emerges in stages over time.

There's so many biological and philisophical questions and conflicts here that I simply do not feel comfortable with my government making broad federal rulings on the issue.

Look, bottom line, I could easily be wrong. Maybe life as we know begins the instant the sperm hits the egg. I don't know. All I know is that I don't want sweeping anti-abortion laws made until we can know more definitively. If I'm wrong, I have no problem with that. But for now, I simply don't know. I don't think anyone actually does. Hnece why I prefer the compromise that allows people to act or not act on their own personal opinions and beliefs.

[Sailor Abbey]

I still want to hear a valid argument on how a bundle of cells, no matter how new, that came from human DNA and will create a human and is alive, is not to be considered "human life."

So do I.

I have no idea. Nobody does...there's not a concrete consensus as to when "human life" as we know it begins.

I realize theres a lot of nit picky details scientists would like to trouble themselves with. The bottom line is that a human being gets all the genetic info its gonna get the moment that sperm fertilizes the egg. Its all there - all the stuff that will eventually make the little sac o’cells look, feel, and seem human.

If you read any of my other posts you would have seen that I specifically said that abortions after the 3rd month shouldn't be alowed except in serious legal cases (rape, incest, etc.) or medical complications.

Its not any less living human DNA the third month. Or the second month. Or the first month.

I fear that sweeping bans of abortion at this point, when it really is still a very fuzzy issue whether people want to admit it or not, will spill over into these other issues, or influence additional debates, like the issue of stem cell research.

It should be regulated by the states at the very least.

I find the continued sentiments that dismiss women who get abortions as murderers or selfish or that they "just want to keep their figure" or they don't care to be MASSIVELY insulting.

It happens all the time.

I'm baffled that people who oppose it can so easily write off seemingly everyone who gets one as being some kind of unfeeling monster. It's not that simple...like the entire debate, it's not a cut and dry, black and white issue.

Well it shouldnt be that big of a deal to them if its just a piece of tissue. It should only be a big deal if you were terminating a human life.

extending full personhood to an individual cell that is barely visible makes no more sense than declaring acorns to be oak trees and selling them at oak tree prices. Hall: What kind of individuality exists at conception?

Here we go again with the nomenclature bullshit. A tree is a tree is a tree, no matter what size. Oh sure, you cant sell it for adult acorn price, what the fuck does that have to do with anything.

Only genetic individuality, a set of hereditary properties that define an individual, is present at conception. But there are five other essential aspects of individuality still to come: developmental, functional, behavioral, psychic and social--which means that full individuality emerges in stages over time.

Which means that your not really human until your at least 18. How stupid is that. behavior doesnt make you human. People in comas arent behaving at all, but theyre still human.

It's important to ask when individuality in the developmental sense begins.

Not really. No.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

So do I.
I realize theres a lot of nit picky details scientists would like to trouble themselves with. The bottom line is that a human being gets all the genetic info its gonna get the moment that sperm fertilizes the egg. Its all there - all the stuff that will eventually make the little sac o’cells look, feel, and seem human.

We're just highlighting the complexities in this issue. Some people think it's very simply and cut and dry. Others think it's more complicated than that. As of right now, I don't think either side is wrong OR right. Hence why I'm pro-choice.

Its not any less living human DNA the third month. Or the second month. Or the first month.

Again, we're getting into the deeper philisophical debate here. Why is something that's barely a few cells be considered as "human" as the rest of us? Maybe we ARE completey "human" in that first month...maybe the first week...maybe the first instant. I DON'T KNOW. NEITHER DO YOU. NOBODY DOES. If you read the article, I think it explains much more eloquently than I ever could just how many seemingly infinite variables go into figuring out what "human life" is and when it begins, even just froma scientific standpoint. I admire the strength of your convictions, but I just don't see the evidence to convince me of anything right now except that there's not enough evidence to enact sweeping national legislation over women's bodies.

It should be regulated by the states at the very least.

Here I agree with you 100%.

It happens all the time.

People are going to unfortunately abuse and misuse anything and everything at some point. I still think it's highly unfair to seemingly damn all of or even the majority of women who choose to have an abortion by the standards of those that may do it for more "superficial" reasons.

Well it shouldnt be that big of a deal to them if its just a piece of tissue. It should only be a big deal if you were terminating a human life.

It's a serious medical procedure. That alone right there is enough to effect people.

Here we go again with the nomenclature bullshit. A tree is a tree is a tree, no matter what size. Oh sure, you cant sell it for adult acorn price, what the fuck does that have to do with anything.

It was just a simple analogy. It's not the crux of the article.

It looks like you responded to some of the article after I posted, so let me squeeze that in here. You seem to just dismiss the idea that human life is something far more complicated than just the basic science of when it potentially begins. I don't understand how you can just ignore the questions as to when our life BEYOND just the basic biology begins. These are the vague aspects of this debate that make me wary of passing laws banning abortion outright. There are so many different takes and theories as to when we graduate from being just a blob of matter to being an actual "human life." In my opinion, we simply don't know yet. This thing is so huge on such a massive number of levels...I don't know, I wish I could zero in on it as much as some of you think you can. Like I said, I admire the strength of your convictions. When I look at it, it seems like such a bigger issue than any of us can comprehend or break down at this point.

Look, I respect your beliefs on this issue, and quite honestly, I think I share most of them on a more basic, less extreme level. I simply feel that at this point the option of choice is the logical one. I hope people choose NOT to have an abortion. But if they do, I hope the educational resources are made available to them so they understand what they're potentially doing and what other options may be out there.

This post has been edited by MyPantsAreOnFire: 25 October 2006 - 06:50 PM

[Sailor Abbey]

Look, bottom line, I could easily be wrong. Maybe life as we know begins the instant the sperm hits the egg. I don't know. All I know is that I don't want sweeping anti-abortion laws made until we can know more definitively. If I'm wrong, I have no problem with that. But for now, I simply don't know. I don't think anyone actually does. Hnece why I prefer the compromise that allows people to act or not act on their own personal opinions and beliefs.

Well, I dont know that the big bang happened. But I'm pretty sure. And I'm pretty sure having human dna and being alive makes you human life. And like I said, there are legitimate reasons to kill human beings. Sure, they are few and far between. But I just think its bs that people try an pass living human dna that is an unborn baby off as something else. I think I would be able to let it go if people would just admit what theyre doing instead of justifying it based on some nitpicky bullshit.

As of right now, I don't think either side is wrong OR right.

I do.

If you read the article, I think it explains much more eloquently than I ever could just how many seemingly infinite variables go into figuring out what "human life" is and when it begins, even just froma scientific standpoint.

I did read it and I thought it sucked. Your stage of development doesn’t make you human, it just makes you at a different stage in your development. Babies are born underdeveloped all the time, but they are no less human.

It's a serious medical procedure.

So is getting a cyst removed, but you dont see people being traumatized over that now do you.

I don't understand how you can just ignore the questions as to when our life BEYOND just the basic biology begins.

The Christian hippies might say the same thing to you.

[barend]

Those are some pretty massive generalizations about a lot of people.

really where?

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

Well, I dont know that the big bang happened. But I'm pretty sure. And I'm pretty sure having human dna and being alive makes you human life. And like I said, there are legitimate reasons to kill human beings. Sure, they are few and far between. But I just think its bs that people try an pass living human dna that is an unborn baby off as something else. I think I would be able to let it go if people would just admit what theyre doing instead of justifying it based on some nitpicky bullshit.

Well, I think you need to realize that what YOU consider "nitpicky bullshit" are things a lot of people consider to be very fundamental and profund discussions and examinations about what makes us "us." You can't get around differences of opinion.

I do.

Again, that's only your opinion. You could very easily be right or wrong. I have no problem admitting I could be wrong. I don't understand why you can't even attempt to make any kind of compromise or discussion as to the possibilities of what we're dealing with. YOU may think it's cut and dry, but that doesn't make it so. Like I said, I appreciate your passion. I just hope you can respect that people will disagree with you.

I did read it and I thought it sucked. Your stage of development doesn’t make you human, it just makes you at a different stage in your development. Babies are born underdeveloped all the time, but they are no less human.

I disagree. I think the core of that line of thought is what exactly makes us "human?" What changes us from being just a mass of tissue or celluar reactions and actually makes us a "life" that takes in stiumulation and response to the environment around us? I'm pretty sure that that happens very early on...personally, I think by the 10th-12th weeks of a pregnancy that those type of functions and "awareness" on a very basic level are probably functioning...but again, this is subjective on my part. Personally, I don't see it too likely that within the first 1-2 months that that "life" is nothing more than a biological reaction and not actual "human life." Again, I could very easily be wrong...all of us could over our various opinions on this issue. The bottom line is nobody knows when the various complexities that makes us "live" (soul/being/essence/whatever) occur because they're so mysterious on their own. This is what I'm talking about when I say there's so much we don't understand...like I said, I'm not arrogant enough to assume I have all or even any of the answers here. I just have my opinion, but I'm open to new information.

So is getting a cyst removed, but you dont see people being traumatized over that now do you.

You're spinning what I said. I never said anyone was "traumatized"...I was talking about the stress and concerns that confront most people when they're going in for very serious medical procedures. Abortion is something that most women don't just jump into without a care in the world. And if they do, well, like I said before, I think we need more education available so that people understand what they're going into and that there are other options available. I certainly do not think abortion is a good choice or the right choice...I just think it's a choice. I'd prefer if it was the LAST choice.

The Christian hippies might say the same thing to you.

They certainly could and I hope they do because these are the questions and issues we should be discussing. They could be right and I could be wrong. Nobody should back down from having those kind of beliefs or convictions. I don't know where the "hippie" part came from, but yes, I agree.

really where?

sorry if i mentioned other things in illustrating my point, but quite frankly i find most of the world's problems revolve around the fact that a majority of people seem to not give a flying fuck about anyone else yet seem so concearned about what other people think of them.

I was taking that to be directed at people choosing to get abortions, but re-reading it I think I jumped the gun. But that's what my response was to.

Actually, I think ultimately we're kind of ranting about the same thing...people attempting to simplify seriously complicated issues.

Overall, I appreciate being able to have this debate/discussion with you guys pretty civily. I wish more people could do the same everywhere.

This post has been edited by MyPantsAreOnFire: 25 October 2006 - 08:33 PM

[Spoon Poetic]

I still don't think the argument against the little lump of cells as being "human life" is valid. For example: Because it isn't self-aware, it's not "human life? Hmm... Does it not being self-aware make it a giraffe? Does it make it dead? What about someone who's had an accident or something, and is brain-dead? Is this person no longer human as well? Are mentally handicapped persons less human because their development stages are cut short?

I just don't see how any of this "development" stuff makes anything less human. If it were an underdeveloped kangaroo, it's still alive, and it's still a kangaroo foetus, therefore, it's kangaroo life. What does this "full personhood" have to do with anything?? How can anyone think so highly of themselves as to declare anyone as more or less human than someone else? Regardless of whether the foetus would be aware of its own death, it's still a human life that is being terminated. Not a dead donkey, not a rock, not an acorn. I'm not arguing whether or not abortioni is right or wrong at the moment - just, like Barend and Sailor Abbey, I don't see why people can't step up and admit that that "little bundle of cells" IS a human life . Instead, they make up excuses like, well, it's not self-aware, it's not psychologically independent, therefore, it's not a human life, and that justifies killing it.

[MyPantsAreOnFire]

I still don't think the argument against the little lump of cells as being "human life" is valid. For example: Because it isn't self-aware, it's not "human life? Hmm... Does it not being self-aware make it a giraffe? Does it make it dead?

It's not just the aspect of self-awareness...like you say, what actually "knows" that it's alive? Babies sure don't. It's the idea that the life is something that is actually being shaped by the stimulus around it. Something makes us human...whether you want to call it our soul or our essence or whatever, but whatever it is, it's what we become based on what's around us. But we need to be capable on some level to even just receive that outside stimulation. The question is when is the mass of tissue something that has become a "person" and not just a biological function? This is the heady stuff that I think we can't really make laws around, and it's why people get so passionate about it. Like we're seeing right here, we're not agreeing on what makes someone a person or when "life" begins or even what life is. There's so many wildly divergent takes on who and what and when...where do we even begin? I know I'm explaining this so crappily, so I apologize for that. It's like when I try and picture what existed before the universe existed...my brain kinda just recoils and says "ouch."

What about someone who's had an accident or something, and is brain-dead? Is this person no longer human as well? Are mentally handicapped persons less human because their development stages are cut short?

Again, you're trying to boil it down to just the idea of self-awareness, and it's so much more than that.

I just don't see how any of this "development" stuff makes anything less human. If it were an underdeveloped kangaroo, it's still alive, and it's still a kangaroo foetus, therefore, it's kangaroo life.

Or it's just a basic biological reaction up until a certain point. We don't know for sure either way.

What does this "full personhood" have to do with anything?? How can anyone think so highly of themselves as to declare anyone as more or less human than someone else?

I know I sure don't. I think the issue is too complex for anyone too know for sure right now. That's been my main point all along.

Regardless of whether the foetus would be aware of its own death, it's still a human life that is being terminated.

Again, it's far beyond just the issue of awareness, and the question of what a human life is and when it begins is still incredibly subjective almost person to person.

Not a dead donkey, not a rock, not an acorn. I'm not arguing whether or not abortioni is right or wrong at the moment - just, like Barend and Sailor Abbey, I don't see why people can't step up and admit that that "little bundle of cells" IS a human life . Instead, they make up excuses like, well, it's not self-aware, it's not psychologically independent, therefore, it's not a human life, and that justifies killing it.

Or maybe, just maybe, they actually believe it's NOT a human life just as much as you guys believe it is. Why must they be in denial or lying to themselves or making up excuses? Maybe they just have a different opinion over something that ultimately is murky at best from a scientific and philisophical standpoint.

Why is it so hard to accept that there are differing opinions and any one of them yours included, may ultimately be proven to be wrong?

I think you should all believe what you've been saying. If you think that's true and how it is, good. Go with that and have faith in that. Some of us simply don't share that faith. It's a complicated issue that's going to take a while to sort out, if ever. But until then, I can't in confidence endorse the idea of the government outlawing abortion. It's too slippery a slope that can be easily misued for the wrong reasons. I appreciate what you guys believe and I hope you stick with it.

This post has been edited by MyPantsAreOnFire: 25 October 2006 - 10:20 PM

[barend]

I was taking that to be directed at people choosing to get abortions, but re-reading it I think I jumped the gun. But that's what my response was to.

for the record a sentace that states that "a majority of people seem " is already exemped from being labled a "generalization".

and no it was adressing humanity as a whole.

and more importantaly i thinks it's the truest thing ever said about the western world.

i should make it my sig.

[Sailor Abbey]

I still don't think the argument against the little lump of cells as being "human life" is valid. For example: Because it isn't self-aware, it's not "human life? Hmm... Does it not being self-aware make it a giraffe? Does it make it dead? What about someone who's had an accident or something, and is brain-dead? Is this person no longer human as well? Are mentally handicapped persons less human because their development stages are cut short?

I just don't see how any of this "development" stuff makes anything less human. If it were an underdeveloped kangaroo, it's still alive, and it's still a kangaroo foetus, therefore, it's kangaroo life. What does this "full personhood" have to do with anything?? How can anyone think so highly of themselves as to declare anyone as more or less human than someone else? Regardless of whether the foetus would be aware of its own death, it's still a human life that is being terminated. Not a dead donkey, not a rock, not an acorn. I'm not arguing whether or not abortioni is right or wrong at the moment - just, like Barend and Sailor Abbey, I don't see why people can't step up and admit that that "little bundle of cells" IS a human life . Instead, they make up excuses like, well, it's not self-aware, it's not psychologically independent, therefore, it's not a human life, and that justifies killing it.

I was going to reply to MyPantsAreOnFire but Spoon said exactly what I was going to say. So I would just like to second the reply at this time...

Seconded.

It's the idea that the life is something that is actually being shaped by the stimulus around it.

No dude. Alive is just alive. It doesnt need to be shaped by anything, it doesnt need to think, it doesnt need to feel, it doesnt need to behave, it just has to be alive. A 1 hour old fetus is alive. If it wasnt alive it wouldnt continue to grow. And if it wasn’t human, it would grow into a quail or something else instead.

Something makes us human...

Yeah, its called a human egg fertilized by a human sperm. Its our DNA that makes us human.

[Sailor Abbey]

The question is when is the mass of tissue something that has become a "person" and not just a biological function?

I would argue that the above is NOT the question. People say women should have the right to choose because the mass of tissue isn’t human life, not that its “not a person.” That it iss NOT human life yet. And that, quite simply, is retarded.

All the things that will eventually make you “a person” are already there, in place, working to do just that - to make you an individual, to make you behave, to do whatever. You don’t get injected with a bonus DNA shot just before birth that suddenly makes you more human than you were before. Your as chock full of your humanity as your every going to be. If you weren’t, then you wouldn’t have it when you grow up.

Again, you're trying to boil it down to just the idea of self-awareness, and it's so much more than that.

Look. Here it is: If it wasn’t alive, it would be dead and therefore wouldn’t grow. If it wasn’t human, it would be an orangutan. It really shouldn’t be any more complicated than that. Making it more complicated is just a way to justify getting more grant money to study the very obvious.

Or it's just a basic biological reaction up until a certain point.

Leprosy is a biological reaction. Human fetuses are growing things that are, as I will point out once again, both human and alive.

Again, it's far beyond just the issue of awareness, and the question of what a human life is and when it begins is still incredibly subjective almost person to person.

You keep saying its subjective but I keep giving you reasons why it really isn’t. Human+Alive=HumanLife. What’s the problem folks. Please debunk my theory if I'm so off base. Instead of telling me the aforementioned equation is false, you just keep telling me how complex it actually is, but I just don’t see how. I just spelled it out for you and the entire human race. And they lived happily ever after, Amen. End of story.

Or maybe, just maybe, they actually believe it's NOT a human life just as much as you guys believe it is. Why must they be in denial or lying to themselves or making up excuses?

Ed Gein really BELIEVED his mom was telling him to kill women and make lampshades out of their skin.

(((How is the baby coming along, Abbey?? Boy or girl, due date? )))

Pretty good. Moving around a lot. Its pretty wierd. I think its a boy but I dont know for sure. I'm not going to find out either. March 18th.

[Otal Nimrodi]

Ed Gein really BELIEVED his mom was telling him to kill women and make lampshades out of their skin.

And I BELIEVE that that is a non-sequitor. We aren't discussing Ed Gein.

[Sailor Abbey]

We're talking about weather or not believing its ok to do something makes it so. My example proves it does not.